Talk:Matthew, Mark, Luke and John/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 22:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this up so quickly. I look forward to it.--SabreBD (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

On first pass, this looks quite strong--well written and sourced, and clearly just about ready for promotion. It's brief, but Google and Google Books searches show that there's not much out there. This appears to cover the available "main aspects" well. Again, thanks for your work on this.

I only have one initial note before moving onto the checklist:

• " pioneering and controversial anthropologist Margaret Murray" -- this might be an unnecessarily loaded introduction to her name, especially since it lacks a source.

I added a reference that covers the controversy. I put this as an indication that readers perhaps should treat her statements with caution, but I am not wedded to it, if that doesn't work.--SabreBD (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Tell you what, I made a slight rephrase to name the work as controversial; that way the slightly peacocky/questionable "pioneering" also disappears. It still conveys a note of caution, but moves away from more general assessment of Murray. Does that make sense to you, too? Feel free to revert me if you disagree; I by no means intend what I just wrote to be the final word on this if you're not happy with it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think its a good change. More accurate, avoids the probably unnecessary bit and still coveys the meaning. Good call.--SabreBD (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is clear and correct. Spotchecks against the Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The discussion of Murray could use a citation--let me know your thoughts on this.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Gloag Four corners to my bed.jpg and File:Grosseteste bishop.jpg appear to need US public domain tags.  Done
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass